wrote
"weatherwax" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote



And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed
my eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is
completely unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed
you that I am reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.

Brainiac,

One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me back to
reading "The Road to Reality" again. I had given up about half way
through because the math was beyond anything I had. However,
the second half of the book is more theoretical and has less math.
I read "The Emperor's New Mind" several years ago and wish I
knew where my copy was.

You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The Emperor's
New Mind". May I call your attention to the sections on Weyl and
Ricci tensors?
Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature predominates,
but in a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl curvature predominates.
The result: The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes
are cold and high entropy. In other words, gravity is not time
symmetric.

Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. Penrose
believes we have to unite quantum mechanics with General
Relativity before we can come up with the solution to the fine tuning
of the universe problem. Penrose also says we are nowhere near
doing that.

--Wax

The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold. All matter inside
the black hole has accelerated towards light speed. That means that it
has maximum temperature. (temperature being the average velocity
regardless of direction) also the matter inside a black hole all has the
same direction (inside) that means it has minimum entropy.

A falling body loses energy. For example: If an object is sitting on a
table, it has a fixed potential energy in relation to the floor. If the
object falls off the table onto the floor, that energy is lost. It will
take and equal amount of energy to replace the object back on the table.

The following is a quote from page 706 of "The Road To Reality".

Gravitation is somewhat confusing, in relation to entropy,
because of its universally attractive nature. We are used to
thinking about entropy in terms of an ordinary gas, where
having the gas concentrated in small regions represents low
entropy . . . and where in the high-entropy state of thermal
equilibrium, the gas isspread uniformly. But with gravity, thing
tend to be the other way about. A uniformly spread system of
gravitating bodies would represent relatively low entropy . . .
whereas high entropy is achieved when the gravitating bodies
chump together.
Roger
Penrose

Temperature is measured by the amount of heat or energy being given off by a
body. With the exception of Hawking's radiation, nothing can excape from a
black hole, and Hawking radiation is quite small, therefore the black hole
itself is cold.

Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)

What you are describing is a white hole, because energy is coming out of it,
rather than falling in.

--Wax



Take me back to the black hole,
the black hole of the Big Bang
to the beautifull crowded enigma
that once was.

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

On Apr 17, 6:47 pm, "adman" wrote:
wrote in message

...

| On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, Garamond Lethe wrote:
| On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, adman wrote:
| "Ye Old One" wrote in message
| .. . | On Thu, 10 Apr
2008
| 10:31:47 GMT, Bryan Olson | enriched this
| group when s/he wrote: |
| | adman wrote:
| | "Ye Old One" wrote [...]: | | I will state,
| quite categorically and without fear of contradiction | | from
| himself, the Professor Penrose does not believe that it is | |
| mathematically improbable/impossible for the universe we see to have |
| | come about by natural causes.
| | |
| | | If you disagree then your best bet would be to email him (his
| email | | address is available in a number of places. I'm sure he
| will tell one | | of his junior assistants to tell you to f*ck off
| and stop being so | | stupid.
| |
| | Are you saying that Penrose will deny the figure he came up with?
|
|
| | No, that is not what he was saying. I cannot speak for him, but |
I
| can tell what he was saying -- because he wrote it in English. |
| | 'Ye Old One' - A.K.A - 'Bob', sure did set himself up to refuted,
|
| if in fact Professor Penrose sides with adman. |
| | I trust the Professor.
| Here is what the Professor said and what i quoted from the web page:
| "This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely
to
| an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure."
|
| Wow, you really misquoted that. But what are a thousand orders of
| magnitude among friends?
|
| Generally you want to give citations for quotes. For example:
|
| "In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has
| estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of
| physical properties is one part in 10^10^123. (Penrose 1989: 343).
| However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other
| possible universes formed with different properties could still have
lead
| to some form of life.
|
| That makes sense.Change any constant by the slightest amount and you
| will still probably have the chance of some form of life but the
| statistics might change to either be more or less than the universe
| where we live in now.But in any case life as we know it will still be
| a very large number against but remember that this is the statistics
| for life nearly exactly as we know it and the more exact you want the
| the more unlikely it becomes.It probably ignores all near infinite
| other possible other forms of life that could just as easily have
| existed but we have only guesses about let alone how many
| possibility's.Our views of the probability of life are unfortunately
| biased to our universe as it is and the limits on our immagination.
| See one of my other posts where I look at the idea of liquid ammonia
| replacing water in life even in our universe as it is now.
| I read in some encyclopedia that selenium oxychloride was the best
| solvent known and have been trying ever since to figure out what it
| meant.Can anyone here tell me more.I will probably just have to make
| some myself to find out what it meant.
| Remember Drakes equation for a statistical estimation on the chances
| of life elsewhere in our universe.Its also an attempt to try for a
| mathematical prediction for life thats somewhat reasonable.
| Dale

has anybody calculated the number for the possibility of life as we know
being elsewhere in the universe

Thats a lot less probable the more you mean as we know it.The more
similar the less likely.Think about this for a bit what if they for
some odd fantastically improbable reason beyond comprehension actually
spoke flawless English and evolved it by chance.What would be the
extreme odds against that.

or in a parallel universe?

There is a part of the many-worlds interpretation or MWI where the
question is that while many of those worlds may be empty, where we
exist to observe the world the get the idea life is common even when
it is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
I don't yet have enough information on it to really have much really
valid opinions on it but it appears plausible.I don't have a lot but
here is a few speculations I do have or have read about on this
subject apart from the quantum physics stuff you can easily find.
Its actually one of the best arguments for any type of time travel
because of the way you can avoid paradoxes.In this version if you
travel back in time and kill your grandparents you will still exist
and that would be because the future you came from would no longer be
the same one.Your version where you stepped into the time machine will
still be real but you could probably never go back.
Time travel of that sort can never give you any future knowledge of
the how the dice will land but only another throw of the dice.If you
travel to the time before you were born you will probably never see
another you even if you sat on the moon and watched with no way to
interfere.
It would be as if you traveled I suppose you could call sideways when
you traveled back in a bit like in the tv series Sliders but with time
travel as well.The farther back in time the greater the divergences in
reality's.
Like I mentioned in a previous post I do hypothesize that the soul
quanta that makes up our conscious minds may turn out to not be time
frame bound and so could in theory time travel.
Actually now that the subject is brought up where weight loss was
reported for dying subjects I have been wondering about repeating the
experiments using insects.Its possible that while they weight far less
they might still show a similar percentage of weight change and
smaller samples can be more accurately weighed probably would be just
as good as much larger animals.Really wish someone would as the
previously done experiments were not that good and this is simple
stuff to do.Really I am curious.
Dale

On Apr 17, 9:33 pm, "weatherwax" wrote:
wrote



"weatherwax" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote

And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed
my eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is
completely unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed
you that I am reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.

Brainiac,

One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me back to
reading "The Road to Reality" again. I had given up about half way
through because the math was beyond anything I had. However,
the second half of the book is more theoretical and has less math.
I read "The Emperor's New Mind" several years ago and wish I
knew where my copy was.

You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The Emperor's
New Mind". May I call your attention to the sections on Weyl and
Ricci tensors?
Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature predominates,
but in a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl curvature predominates.
The result: The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes
are cold and high entropy. In other words, gravity is not time
symmetric.

Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. Penrose
believes we have to unite quantum mechanics with General
Relativity before we can come up with the solution to the fine tuning
of the universe problem. Penrose also says we are nowhere near
doing that.

--Wax
The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold. All matter inside
the black hole has accelerated towards light speed. That means that it
has maximum temperature. (temperature being the average velocity
regardless of direction) also the matter inside a black hole all has the
same direction (inside) that means it has minimum entropy.

A falling body loses energy. For example: If an object is sitting on a
table, it has a fixed potential energy in relation to the floor. If the
object falls off the table onto the floor, that energy is lost. It will
take and equal amount of energy to replace the object back on the table.

Actually if an alternative theory turns out right then this might not
unnecessarily always be the case.In this alternative theory where the
slower time as a result of gravity were to expand the surrounding
space then something thats the revers of increasing entropy becomes
the case.You will probably need to see the web site to get you started
on this idea and just keep in mind its incomplete and unfinished but
has enough info to get you started.
So to shortly review what I mean lets pretend for a second that the
theory is right that time dilation contracts matter in such a way that
it expands the surrounding space and you can really get a lot of this
effect around neutron stars and it goes to extremes when you create a
black holes.Remember iron is the final nuclear material in any fusion
or fission nuclear reaction and you cant get any more nuclear energy
from it and any reactions always require qn energy input.Note that a
neutron star can convert iron back into neutrons or at least it can if
you go a bit below its surface.Well its easy to show how neutron can
break down into protons and thats about the same thing as hydrogen so
in theory if you could pull a neutron star apart you could also have
converted iron back into hydrogen but of course you cant make it pay
gravity wells being what they are you end up losing whatever you gain
by the energy it takes to get the neutrons out.
But if gravity's time dilating effects can be shown to expand space
and remember this becomes indistinguishable from matter contracting or
the space expanding for the same reason that a contracted ruler
measures more space i.e. circumference around a neutron star etc.
Well what this means is that if you expand the space inside of a
neutron star by turning it into a black hole you end up with free
neutrons that originally came from iron that can now be burnt again in
new stars just like the original hydrogen. But note the energy is
still only available within the newly created space.The theory
predicts that the original event horizon if it can still be called
that and is vastely expanded so you don't have a thin boundary will
become a white hole from this side so nothing will enter it to return
to the original universe.
Yes the theory dose predict a vast increase in the amount of original
matter if the space expanding effect is fast enough so baronic numbers
are not conserved and are actually increased antimatter is not dealt
with here and is another subject to be dealt with.
www.alttheories.com Sorry its so incomplete I just haven't found time.
Dale


The following is a quote from page 706 of "The Road To Reality".

Gravitation is somewhat confusing, in relation to entropy,
because of its universally attractive nature. We are used to
thinking about entropy in terms of an ordinary gas, where
having the gas concentrated in small regions represents low
entropy . . . and where in the high-entropy state of thermal
equilibrium, the gas isspread uniformly. But with gravity, thing
tend to be the other way about. A uniformly spread system of
gravitating bodies would represent relatively low entropy . . .
whereas high entropy is achieved when the gravitating bodies
chump together.
Roger
Penrose

Temperature is measured by the amount of heat or energy being given off by a
body. With the exception of Hawking's radiation, nothing can excape from a
black hole, and Hawking radiation is quite small, therefore the black hole
itself is cold.

Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)

What you are describing is a white hole, because energy is coming out of it,
rather than falling in.

--Wax

Take me back to the black hole,
the black hole of the Big Bang
to the beautifull crowded enigma
that once was.

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

On 18 apr, 06:33, "weatherwax" wrote:
wrote





"weatherwax" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote

And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed
my eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is
completely unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed
you that I am reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.

Brainiac,

One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me back to
reading "The Road to Reality" again. I had given up about half way
through because the math was beyond anything I had. However,
the second half of the book is more theoretical and has less math.
I read "The Emperor's New Mind" several years ago and wish I
knew where my copy was.

You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The Emperor's
New Mind". May I call your attention to the sections on Weyl and
Ricci tensors?
Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature predominates,
but in a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl curvature predominates.
The result: *The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes
are cold and high entropy. In other words, gravity is not time
symmetric.

Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. Penrose
believes we have to unite quantum mechanics with General
Relativity before we can come up with the solution to the fine tuning
of the universe problem. Penrose also says we are nowhere near
doing that.

--Wax
The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold. *All matter inside
the black hole has accelerated towards light speed. *That means that it
has maximum temperature. *(temperature being the average velocity
regardless of direction) also the matter inside a black hole all has the
same direction (inside) that means it has minimum entropy.

A falling body loses energy. *For example: *If an object is sitting on a
table, it has a fixed potential energy in relation to the floor. *If the
object falls off the table onto the floor, that energy is lost. *It will
take and equal amount of energy to replace the object back on the table.

The following is a quote from page 706 of "The Road To Reality".

* * * * Gravitation is somewhat confusing, in relation to entropy,
* * because of its universally attractive nature. *We are used to
* * thinking about entropy in terms of an ordinary gas, where
* * having the gas concentrated in small regions represents low
* * entropy . . . and where in the high-entropy state of thermal
* * equilibrium, the gas isspread uniformly. *But with gravity, thing
* * tend to be the other way about. *A uniformly spread system of
* * gravitating bodies would represent relatively low entropy . . .
* * whereas high entropy is achieved when the gravitating bodies
* * chump together.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Roger
Penrose

Temperature is measured by the amount of heat or energy being given off by a
body. * With the exception of Hawking's radiation, nothing can excape from a
black hole, and Hawking radiation is quite small, therefore the black hole
itself is cold.

Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)

What you are describing is a white hole, because energy is coming out of it,
rather than falling in.

--Wax



Take me back to the black hole,
the black hole of the Big Bang
to the beautifull crowded enigma
that once was.

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

What I am desribing is the inside of a black hole,
no entropy there!
what you are describing is the outside!
Why compare the outside of a black hole
with the inside of the universe ?
Of course you won't get symmetry that way!

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

We are living inside a black hole,
but science is still in denial

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:47:23 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:



wrote in message
...

| On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, Garamond Lethe wrote:
| On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, adman wrote:
| "Ye Old One" wrote in message
| .. . | On Thu, 10 Apr
2008
| 10:31:47 GMT, Bryan Olson | enriched this
| group when s/he wrote: |
| | adman wrote:
| | "Ye Old One" wrote [...]: | | I will state,
| quite categorically and without fear of contradiction | | from
| himself, the Professor Penrose does not believe that it is | |
| mathematically improbable/impossible for the universe we see to have |
| | come about by natural causes.
| | |
| | | If you disagree then your best bet would be to email him (his
| email | | address is available in a number of places. I'm sure he
| will tell one | | of his junior assistants to tell you to f*ck off
| and stop being so | | stupid.
| |
| | Are you saying that Penrose will deny the figure he came up with?
|
|
| | No, that is not what he was saying. I cannot speak for him, but |
I
| can tell what he was saying -- because he wrote it in English. |
| | 'Ye Old One' - A.K.A - 'Bob', sure did set himself up to refuted,
|
| if in fact Professor Penrose sides with adman. |
| | I trust the Professor.
| Here is what the Professor said and what i quoted from the web page:
| "This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely
to
| an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure."
|
| Wow, you really misquoted that. But what are a thousand orders of
| magnitude among friends?
|
| Generally you want to give citations for quotes. For example:
|
| "In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose has
| estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set of
| physical properties is one part in 10^10^123. (Penrose 1989: 343).
| However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the other
| possible universes formed with different properties could still have
lead
| to some form of life.
|
| That makes sense.Change any constant by the slightest amount and you
| will still probably have the chance of some form of life but the
| statistics might change to either be more or less than the universe
| where we live in now.But in any case life as we know it will still be
| a very large number against but remember that this is the statistics
| for life nearly exactly as we know it and the more exact you want the
| the more unlikely it becomes.It probably ignores all near infinite
| other possible other forms of life that could just as easily have
| existed but we have only guesses about let alone how many
| possibility's.Our views of the probability of life are unfortunately
| biased to our universe as it is and the limits on our immagination.
| See one of my other posts where I look at the idea of liquid ammonia
| replacing water in life even in our universe as it is now.
| I read in some encyclopedia that selenium oxychloride was the best
| solvent known and have been trying ever since to figure out what it
| meant.Can anyone here tell me more.I will probably just have to make
| some myself to find out what it meant.
| Remember Drakes equation for a statistical estimation on the chances
| of life elsewhere in our universe.Its also an attempt to try for a
| mathematical prediction for life thats somewhat reasonable.
| Dale



has anybody calculated the number for the possibility of life as we know
being elsewhere in the universe or in a parallel universe?


Research the Drake Equation.

--
Bob.

wrote in message
...

| On Apr 17, 6:47 pm, "adman" wrote:
| wrote in message
|
|
...
|
| | On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, Garamond Lethe wrote:
| | On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, adman wrote:
| | "Ye Old One" wrote in message
| | .. . | On Thu, 10 Apr
| 2008
| | 10:31:47 GMT, Bryan Olson | enriched
this
| | group when s/he wrote: |
| | | adman wrote:
| | | "Ye Old One" wrote [...]: | | I will
state,
| | quite categorically and without fear of contradiction | | from
| | himself, the Professor Penrose does not believe that it is | |
| | mathematically improbable/impossible for the universe we see to
have |
| | | come about by natural causes.
| | | |
| | | | If you disagree then your best bet would be to email him
(his
| | email | | address is available in a number of places. I'm sure
he
| | will tell one | | of his junior assistants to tell you to f*ck
off
| | and stop being so | | stupid.
| | |
| | | Are you saying that Penrose will deny the figure he came up
with?
| |
| |
| | | No, that is not what he was saying. I cannot speak for him, but
|
| I
| | can tell what he was saying -- because he wrote it in English. |
| | | 'Ye Old One' - A.K.A - 'Bob', sure did set himself up to
refuted,
| |
| | if in fact Professor Penrose sides with adman. |
| | | I trust the Professor.
| | Here is what the Professor said and what i quoted from the web
page:
| | "This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been,
namely
| to
| | an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary
figure."
| |
| | Wow, you really misquoted that. But what are a thousand orders of
| | magnitude among friends?
| |
| | Generally you want to give citations for quotes. For example:
| |
| | "In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose
has
| | estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set
of
| | physical properties is one part in 10^10^123. (Penrose 1989: 343).
| | However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the
other
| | possible universes formed with different properties could still have
| lead
| | to some form of life.
| |
| | That makes sense.Change any constant by the slightest amount and you
| | will still probably have the chance of some form of life but the
| | statistics might change to either be more or less than the universe
| | where we live in now.But in any case life as we know it will still be
| | a very large number against but remember that this is the statistics
| | for life nearly exactly as we know it and the more exact you want the
| | the more unlikely it becomes.It probably ignores all near infinite
| | other possible other forms of life that could just as easily have
| | existed but we have only guesses about let alone how many
| | possibility's.Our views of the probability of life are unfortunately
| | biased to our universe as it is and the limits on our immagination.
| | See one of my other posts where I look at the idea of liquid ammonia
| | replacing water in life even in our universe as it is now.
| | I read in some encyclopedia that selenium oxychloride was the best
| | solvent known and have been trying ever since to figure out what it
| | meant.Can anyone here tell me more.I will probably just have to make
| | some myself to find out what it meant.
| | Remember Drakes equation for a statistical estimation on the chances
| | of life elsewhere in our universe.Its also an attempt to try for a
| | mathematical prediction for life thats somewhat reasonable.
| | Dale
|
| has anybody calculated the number for the possibility of life as we know
| being elsewhere in the universe
|
| Thats a lot less probable the more you mean as we know it.The more
| similar the less likely.Think about this for a bit what if they for
| some odd fantastically improbable reason beyond comprehension actually
| spoke flawless English and evolved it by chance.What would be the
| extreme odds against that.



Well, the odds would be near zero I'm sure. Just considering that atmosphere
earth has an all the other variables that life needs to live converging
twice in the same universe is highly improbable and beyond comprehension say
least



However, the number 1010123 is quite astronomical also and would suggest
that this universe should not be here. So the effort to find a similar earth
in my opinion is a waste of time.
|
| or in a parallel universe?
|
| There is a part of the many-worlds interpretation or MWI where the
| question is that while many of those worlds may be empty, where we
| exist to observe the world the get the idea life is common even when
| it is not.
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation



Interesting website.


| I don't yet have enough information on it to really have much really
| valid opinions on it but it appears plausible.



anything can appear plausible with enough rationalization.



| I don't have a lot but
| here is a few speculations I do have or have read about on this
| subject apart from the quantum physics stuff you can easily find.
| Its actually one of the best arguments for any type of time travel
| because of the way you can avoid paradoxes.In this version if you
| travel back in time and kill your grandparents you will still exist
| and that would be because the future you came from would no longer be
| the same one.Your version where you stepped into the time machine will
| still be real but you could probably never go back.
| Time travel of that sort can never give you any future knowledge of
| the how the dice will land but only another throw of the dice.If you
| travel to the time before you were born you will probably never see
| another you even if you sat on the moon and watched with no way to
| interfere.
| It would be as if you traveled I suppose you could call sideways when
| you traveled back in a bit like in the tv series Sliders but with time
| travel as well.The farther back in time the greater the divergences in
| reality's.
| Like I mentioned in a previous post I do hypothesize that the soul
| quanta that makes up our conscious minds may turn out to not be time
| frame bound and so could in theory time travel.



Sounds reasonable to me. Except the part about killing your grandparents and
you still surviving. Unless you meant you could go back ( foward in time )
to another dimension but not go back to the dimension you left because you
would leave a paradox in the dimension you originated from once your
grandparents were dead.


| Actually now that the subject is brought up where weight loss was
| reported for dying subjects I have been wondering about repeating the
| experiments using insects.Its possible that while they weight far less
| they might still show a similar percentage of weight change and
| smaller samples can be more accurately weighed probably would be just
| as good as much larger animals.Really wish someone would as the
| previously done experiments were not that good and this is simple
| stuff to do.Really I am curious.
| Dale
|

wrote in message
...

| On Apr 8, 4:12 am, "adman" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
|
|
...
| | On 6 Apr, 12:46, "adman" wrote:
| | "Ye Old One" wrote in
| messagenews:4adhv317q3cc02o8svo7c5gf72tas998s6@4ax .com...
| | | On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 22:29:22 -0500, "adman"
| | | enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| | |
| | | The only thing pathetic is an arm chair scientist wanna be
| discounting
| | | information from an obviously well qualified, well edcuated, and
wlll
| | | accomplished, real scientists; a person that has written a book
with
| | Steven
| | | Hawkins.
| | |
| | | Now THATS pathetic.
| | |
| | | Well, I've edited papers he has written for publication, attended
many
| | | of his lectures and I've sat down and talked with him. He is,
indeed
| | | well qualified, well educated, and well accomplished "real"
scientist.
| | | He understands the Big Bang better than most and he most certainly
| | | does not have time for pathetic lying morons like you.
| |
| | Exactly how am i lying?
| |
| | I quoted Him directly.
| |
| | Quoted who directly? Roger Penrose or Harun Yahya?
|
| Harun Yahya is Quoting Penrose on the web page. Can't you read? He gave
the
| books where he got Penrose's quotes in the footnotes.Why? The books are
not
| published on line I guess. However, I did come across an interview
Penrose
| did where he expounded on his computations.
|
| I am sure someone with your wealth of intelligence can verify Harun
Yahya's
| website on Penrose's remarks.
| I read about Penrose and about his books. There is nothing to suggest
Harun
| Yahya is lying and making up quotes that Penrose did not say.
|
| NOW, If Penrose, an obviously well qualified, well educated, and well
| accomplished real scientist says the mathematical odds are
overwhelmingly
| against the universe simply *poofing* into existence, then I believe it
|
| Trying to discredit Harun Yahya by insinuating Harun Yahya makes the
remarks
| and not Penrose is simply denial on your part. Face facts. 1)
singulaeity is
| not proven 2) The mathematical odds are overwhelmingly against the
universe
| simply *poofing* into existence. 3) The Big Bang THEORY is moot.
|
| The lack of imagination on how something could have happened is not
| proof it could never have happend.Remember that Penrose and others
| trying to use statistics to predict the probabilities of an event such
| as the big bang without knowing how the physics may actually work and
| are forced to use assumptions and to add to the confusion that no one
| knows what the odds are of each of those assumptions being right or
| wrong.For things like the big bang where you don't have a decent
| scientific foundation to start from it all ends up as piles of
| guesswork.



Exactly. And I have posted before that the Big bang theory has a bad
foundation and is just a lot of guesswork. Everything is foundational, if
you start off with a theory that is unproven and then claim everything came
after that theory is correct, that is an assumption and not evidence. No one
really knows what the odds are of the universe spontaneously blowing out
from a singularity, and no one really knows if the singularity exists
because the singularity defies physics as we know it.



Science for all its wonders and for all its benefits to mankind is still a
lot of guesswork.


| According to an alternative theory that I so frequently post here
| about its actually really easy to explain how a big bang would work if
| you can get to the point where you can actually understand how
| gravitational time dilation works. If so you should be able to
| understand this very plausible alternative theory where I have
| included a web site below to get you started.
| Turns out if this alternative theory is right that any creation of a
| black hole should also result in expanding the space in and around
| them and interestingly enough gives the same predictions as those of
| inflation theory for hypothetical observers inside of one when it was
| created. While this web site that is still incomplete it will still
| have enough info there now to get you started on how the theory works
| www.alttheories.com.You will still find more info from my postings
| than on the site at this time but the site is still useful.Its to be
| noted that while I do get occasional other posters that at first seam
| to disagree they have not provided much info or opinions on where the
| theory is actually wrong and thats interesting because they should
| have been able to do so, theory's not that complex to have been hard
| to refute it it was clearly wrong.
|


| I don't know how many of my postings you may have read but if you did
| you will also know how the theory strangely enough actually results in
| the best argument for the possibility of god ever.This is ironic
| because one would have expected the very opposite to be the case.
| But you still end up having to essentially throw the bible away and
| start over.
| Dale





It may work the other way around. The Bible may end up helping you prove
Your theory.



Consider this, the dimensions of Noah's Ark has a ratio of 30 to five to
three. Thousands of years later shipbuilders discovered that ships built to
that ratio can almost never capsize even with a 60 degree roll, yet that
information was in the Bible all along.


|

wrote in message
...



We are living inside a black hole,
but science is still in denial



To me that makes more sense then a singularity coming out of no where,
explodes, and starts expanding into a universe



The entire universe we exist inside of is the backside of a black hole.
Matter accelerates as it enters a black hole and would seem like an
explosion from inside of the hole with everything been sucked into the hole
expanding out into space on the other side.



But that would mean every black hole in our universe is just the front side
of a new universe. Thereby creating a never ending cycle of new universes.



But that still leaves the problem, where did the first black hole and all of
the matter falling into the hole come from that started the cycle

wrote
"weatherwax" wrote:
wrote
"weatherwax" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote

And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed
my eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is
completely unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed
you that I am reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.

Brainiac,

One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me
back to reading "The Road to Reality" again. I had given up
about half way through because the math was beyond anything
I had. However, the second half of the book is more theoretical
and has less math. I read "The Emperor's New Mind" several
years ago and wish I knew where my copy was.

You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The
Emperor's New Mind". May I call your attention to the sections
on Weyl and Ricci tensors?
Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature
predominates, but in a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl
curvature predominates.
The result: The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes
are cold and high entropy. In other words, gravity is not time
symmetric.

Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. Penrose
believes we have to unite quantum mechanics with General
Relativity before we can come up with the solution to the fine tuning
of the universe problem. Penrose also says we are nowhere near
doing that.

--Wax
The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold. All matter inside
the black hole has accelerated towards light speed. That means that it
has maximum temperature. (temperature being the average velocity
regardless of direction) also the matter inside a black hole all has the
same direction (inside) that means it has minimum entropy.

A falling body loses energy. For example: If an object is sitting on a
table, it has a fixed potential energy in relation to the floor. If the
object falls off the table onto the floor, that energy is lost. It will
take and equal amount of energy to replace the object back on the
table.

The following is a quote from page 706 of "The Road To Reality".

Gravitation is somewhat confusing, in relation to entropy,
because of its universally attractive nature. We are used to
thinking about entropy in terms of an ordinary gas, where
having the gas concentrated in small regions represents low
entropy . . . and where in the high-entropy state of thermal
equilibrium, the gas isspread uniformly. But with gravity, thing
tend to be the other way about. A uniformly spread system of
gravitating bodies would represent relatively low entropy . . .
whereas high entropy is achieved when the gravitating bodies
chump together.
Roger Penrose

Temperature is measured by the amount of heat or energy being given
off by a body. With the exception of Hawking's radiation, nothing can
excape from a black hole, and Hawking radiation is quite small,
therefore the black hole itself is cold.

Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)

What you are describing is a white hole, because energy is coming
out of it, rather than falling in.

--Wax

What I am desribing is the inside of a black hole,
no entropy there!
what you are describing is the outside!
Why compare the outside of a black hole
with the inside of the universe ?
Of course you won't get symmetry that way!

What I am describing is a black hole.

You are incorrectly trying to describe the singularity at the center of a
black hole. Singularities are formed when a large star literally burns
out. With no remaining force to oppose the pressure of gravitation, the
star collapses. This is a state of high entropy.

--Wax

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:04:26 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:



wrote in message
...

| On Apr 17, 6:47 pm, "adman" wrote:
| wrote in message
|
|
...
|
| | On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, Garamond Lethe wrote:
| | On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, adman wrote:
| | "Ye Old One" wrote in message
| | .. . | On Thu, 10 Apr
| 2008
| | 10:31:47 GMT, Bryan Olson | enriched
this
| | group when s/he wrote: |
| | | adman wrote:
| | | "Ye Old One" wrote [...]: | | I will
state,
| | quite categorically and without fear of contradiction | | from
| | himself, the Professor Penrose does not believe that it is | |
| | mathematically improbable/impossible for the universe we see to
have |
| | | come about by natural causes.
| | | |
| | | | If you disagree then your best bet would be to email him
(his
| | email | | address is available in a number of places. I'm sure
he
| | will tell one | | of his junior assistants to tell you to f*ck
off
| | and stop being so | | stupid.
| | |
| | | Are you saying that Penrose will deny the figure he came up
with?
| |
| |
| | | No, that is not what he was saying. I cannot speak for him, but
|
| I
| | can tell what he was saying -- because he wrote it in English. |
| | | 'Ye Old One' - A.K.A - 'Bob', sure did set himself up to
refuted,
| |
| | if in fact Professor Penrose sides with adman. |
| | | I trust the Professor.
| | Here is what the Professor said and what i quoted from the web
page:
| | "This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been,
namely
| to
| | an accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary
figure."
| |
| | Wow, you really misquoted that. But what are a thousand orders of
| | magnitude among friends?
| |
| | Generally you want to give citations for quotes. For example:
| |
| | "In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose
has
| | estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set
of
| | physical properties is one part in 10^10^123. (Penrose 1989: 343).
| | However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the
other
| | possible universes formed with different properties could still have
| lead
| | to some form of life.
| |
| | That makes sense.Change any constant by the slightest amount and you
| | will still probably have the chance of some form of life but the
| | statistics might change to either be more or less than the universe
| | where we live in now.But in any case life as we know it will still be
| | a very large number against but remember that this is the statistics
| | for life nearly exactly as we know it and the more exact you want the
| | the more unlikely it becomes.It probably ignores all near infinite
| | other possible other forms of life that could just as easily have
| | existed but we have only guesses about let alone how many
| | possibility's.Our views of the probability of life are unfortunately
| | biased to our universe as it is and the limits on our immagination.
| | See one of my other posts where I look at the idea of liquid ammonia
| | replacing water in life even in our universe as it is now.
| | I read in some encyclopedia that selenium oxychloride was the best
| | solvent known and have been trying ever since to figure out what it
| | meant.Can anyone here tell me more.I will probably just have to make
| | some myself to find out what it meant.
| | Remember Drakes equation for a statistical estimation on the chances
| | of life elsewhere in our universe.Its also an attempt to try for a
| | mathematical prediction for life thats somewhat reasonable.
| | Dale
|
| has anybody calculated the number for the possibility of life as we know
| being elsewhere in the universe
|
| Thats a lot less probable the more you mean as we know it.The more
| similar the less likely.Think about this for a bit what if they for
| some odd fantastically improbable reason beyond comprehension actually
| spoke flawless English and evolved it by chance.What would be the
| extreme odds against that.



Well, the odds would be near zero I'm sure. Just considering that atmosphere
earth has an all the other variables that life needs to live converging
twice in the same universe is highly improbable and beyond comprehension say
least

Our atmosphere is a product of life.



However, the number 1010123 is quite astronomical also and would suggest
that this universe should not be here. So the effort to find a similar earth
in my opinion is a waste of time.

You have shown that your opinion is coloured by an unscientific view
of things.

[snip rot.]

--
Bob.